IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/bstrat/v33y2024i3p1937-1961.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why use or forgo formal and informal appropriation mechanisms? A qualitative study of sustainable innovations from small‐ and medium‐sized enterprises

Author

Listed:
  • Pablo Morales
  • Meindert Flikkema
  • Carolina Castaldi
  • Ard‐Pieter de Man

Abstract

The role that appropriation mechanisms such as patents and secrecy play in sustainable innovation is currently being debated. In particular, we lack an understanding of the different motives behind using or forgoing specific appropriation mechanisms. Current knowledge is mainly derived from the general innovation literature, which emphasizes profiting from innovation. However, sustainable innovators also seek to positively impact the environment and society, which raises the question of whether existing appropriation literature also applies to sustainable innovation. We interviewed 42 business leaders from small‐to‐medium‐sized enterprises concerning a recently commercialized sustainable innovation. The results indicate that known motives from the general innovation literature apply to sustainable innovation but also reveal motives specific to sustainable innovation. We also discovered motives suitable to all innovations, such as non‐disclosure agreement motives extending beyond achieving secrecy. Theoretically, our findings suggest the profiting from innovation framework may also apply to sustainable innovation, even though the pursuit of profits is not the only motive of sustainable innovators. In practical terms, the results help sustainable innovators to craft an appropriation strategy, and policy‐related opportunities arise for improving patent and trademark filing experiences.

Suggested Citation

  • Pablo Morales & Meindert Flikkema & Carolina Castaldi & Ard‐Pieter de Man, 2024. "Why use or forgo formal and informal appropriation mechanisms? A qualitative study of sustainable innovations from small‐ and medium‐sized enterprises," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(3), pages 1937-1961, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:bstrat:v:33:y:2024:i:3:p:1937-1961
    DOI: 10.1002/bse.3582
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3582
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/bse.3582?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hobday, Mike, 1998. "Product complexity, innovation and industrial organisation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 689-710, February.
    2. Block, Jörn H. & Fisch, Christian O. & Hahn, Alexander & Sandner, Philipp G., 2015. "Why do SMEs file trademarks? Insights from firms in innovative industries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(10), pages 1915-1930.
    3. David J. TEECE, 2008. "Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Transfer And Licensing Of Know-How And Intellectual Property Understanding the Multinational Enterprise in the Modern World, chapter 5, pages 67-87, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. Zobel, Ann-Kristin & Lokshin, Boris & Hagedoorn, John, 2017. "Formal and informal appropriation mechanisms: The role of openness and innovativeness," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 44-54.
    5. Meindert Flikkema & Ard-Pieter De Man & Carolina Castaldi, 2014. "Are Trademark Counts a Valid Indicator of Innovation? Results of an In-Depth Study of New Benelux Trademarks Filed by SMEs," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(4), pages 310-331, May.
    6. Flikkema, Meindert & Castaldi, Carolina & de Man, Ard-Pieter & Seip, Marcel, 2019. "Trademarks’ relatedness to product and service innovation: A branding strategy approach," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(6), pages 1340-1353.
    7. Bronwyn Hall & Christian Helmers & Mark Rogers & Vania Sena, 2014. "The Choice between Formal and Informal Intellectual Property: A Review," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 52(2), pages 375-423, June.
    8. Geoff Mulgan, 2006. "The Process of Social Innovation," Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, MIT Press, vol. 1(2), pages 145-162, April.
    9. Capponi, Giovanna & Criscuolo, Paola & Martinelli, Arianna & Nuvolari, Alessandro, 2019. "Profiting from innovation: Evidence from a survey of Queen's Awards winners," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 155-169.
    10. Castaldi, Carolina, 2018. "To trademark or not to trademark: The case of the creative and cultural industries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 606-616.
    11. Thomä, Jörg & Bizer, Kilian, 2013. "To protect or not to protect? Modes of appropriability in the small enterprise sector," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 35-49.
    12. Suma Athreye & Claudio Fassio, 2020. "Why do innovators not apply for trademarks? The role of information asymmetries and collaborative innovation," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(1-2), pages 134-154, February.
    13. Richard C. Levin & Alvin K. Klevorick & Richard R. Nelson & Sidney G. Winter, 1987. "Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 18(3, Specia), pages 783-832.
    14. Valentina Cillo & Antonio Messeni Petruzzelli & Lorenzo Ardito & Manlio Del Giudice, 2019. "Understanding sustainable innovation: A systematic literature review," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(5), pages 1012-1025, September.
    15. Carolina Castaldi, 2021. "Sustainable innovation and intellectual property rights: friends, foes or perfect strangers?," LEM Papers Series 2021/11, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    16. Flikkema, M.J. & Man, A.P. de & Wolters, M.J.J., 2010. "New trademark registration as an indicator of innovation: results of an explorative study of Benelux trademark data," Serie Research Memoranda 0009, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
    17. Nicoletta Corrocher & Ilaria Solito, 2017. "How do firms capture value from environmental innovations? An empirical analysis on European SMEs," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(5), pages 569-585, July.
    18. Benjamin Saunders & Julius Sim & Tom Kingstone & Shula Baker & Jackie Waterfield & Bernadette Bartlam & Heather Burroughs & Clare Jinks, 2018. "Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 52(4), pages 1893-1907, July.
    19. Arundel, Anthony, 2001. "The relative effectiveness of patents and secrecy for appropriation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 611-624, April.
    20. Giovanna Afeltra & Sayed Alireza Alerasoul & Fernanda Strozzi, 2021. "The evolution of sustainable innovation: from the past to the future," European Journal of Innovation Management, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 26(2), pages 386-421, September.
    21. Leiponen, Aija & Byma, Justin, 2009. "If you cannot block, you better run: Small firms, cooperative innovation, and appropriation strategies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(9), pages 1478-1488, November.
    22. Udo Zander & Bruce Kogut, 1995. "Knowledge and the Speed of the Transfer and Imitation of Organizational Capabilities: An Empirical Test," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 76-92, February.
    23. Blind, Knut & Edler, Jakob & Frietsch, Rainer & Schmoch, Ulrich, 2006. "Motives to patent: Empirical evidence from Germany," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 655-672, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Joseph Amankwah-Amoah & Stephen Kehinde Medase, 2024. "Extracting Innovation Value from Intellectual Property: Evidence from sub-Saharan Africa," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 15(2), pages 8933-8967, June.
    2. Carolina Castaldi, 2021. "Sustainable innovation and intellectual property rights: friends, foes or perfect strangers?," LEM Papers Series 2021/11, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    3. Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, Pia & Yang, Jialei, 2022. "Distinguishing between appropriability and appropriation: A systematic review and a renewed conceptual framing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    4. Astrid Heidemann Lassen & Daniel Ljungberg & Maureen McKelvey, 2020. "Promoting Future Sustainable Transition by Overcoming the Openness Paradox in KIE Firms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-14, December.
    5. Yang, Jialei & Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, Pia, 2022. "Evolving appropriability – Variation in the relevance of appropriability mechanisms across industries," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    6. Martine Gadille & Juan Ramón Gallego-Bono, 2021. "Rebuilding a Cluster While Protecting Knowledge within Low-Medium-Tech Supplier SMEs: A Spanish and French Comparison," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-35, October.
    7. Barros, Henrique M., 2021. "Neither at the cutting edge nor in a patent-friendly environment: Appropriating the returns from innovation in a less developed economy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    8. Langlois, Jonathan & BenMahmoud-Jouini, Sihem & Servajean-Hilst, Romaric, 2023. "Practicing secrecy in open innovation – The case of a military firm," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(1).
    9. Thomä Jörg & Zimmermann Volker, 2013. "Knowledge Protection Practices in Innovating SMEs," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 233(5-6), pages 691-717, October.
    10. Capponi, Giovanna & Criscuolo, Paola & Martinelli, Arianna & Nuvolari, Alessandro, 2019. "Profiting from innovation: Evidence from a survey of Queen's Awards winners," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 155-169.
    11. Long, Vicky, 2019. "IPRs and Appropriability in the Digital Era: Evidence from the Swedish Video (Computer) Games Industry," Ratio Working Papers 329, The Ratio Institute.
    12. Bernadette Power & Gavin C. Reid, 2023. "Lifting the hood of supply and demand for trademarks of start‐ups: Partial observability estimates," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 44(1), pages 311-321, January.
    13. Yougen Cao & Shengce Ren & Mei Du, 2022. "Strategic trademark management: a systematic literature review and prospects for future research," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 29(5), pages 435-453, September.
    14. Marco Grazzi & Chiara Piccardo & Cecilia Vergari, 2020. "Concordance and complementarity in IP instruments," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(7), pages 756-788, August.
    15. Insu Cho & Heejun Park & Joseph Kim, 2012. "The moderating effect of innovation protection mechanisms on the competitiveness of service firms," Service Business, Springer;Pan-Pacific Business Association, vol. 6(3), pages 369-386, September.
    16. Reinhilde Veugelers & Cédric Schneider, 2018. "Which IP strategies do young highly innovative firms choose?," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 113-129, January.
    17. Bos, Brenda & Broekhuizen, Thijs L.J. & de Faria, Pedro, 2015. "A dynamic view on secrecy management," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(12), pages 2619-2627.
    18. Chen, Min-Nan & Wu, Chia-Hung, 2020. "Complementary-in use appropriability in innovative service firms: An empirical study in Taiwan," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(7).
    19. Behrens, Vanessa & Berger, Marius & Hud, Martin & Hünermund, Paul & Iferd, Younes & Peters, Bettina & Rammer, Christian & Schubert, Torben, 2017. "Innovation activities of firms in Germany - Results of the German CIS 2012 and 2014: Background report on the surveys of the Mannheim Innovation Panel Conducted in the Years 2013 to 2016," ZEW Dokumentationen 17-04, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    20. Jürgen Mihm & Fabian J. Sting & Tan Wang, 2015. "On the Effectiveness of Patenting Strategies in Innovation Races," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(11), pages 2662-2684, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:bstrat:v:33:y:2024:i:3:p:1937-1961. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0836 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.